It had already updated to Galaxy 2 yesterday, and as I already said, I had not installed any games using Galaxy 1, so exactly how big a database should I expect it to be updating? Without any games, it should have done a straight replacement of files, and the default setup should have been ready immediately to use.

Well while I wasn't specifically testing Galaxy, if I had to use it to get the file I mentioned, of course how well it works plays a part.

Read my earlier response about what database. Should have been nothing to update, and default files should have been ready to go with an empty database.
Like I said, poor programming.
And even if you want to count getting my list of owned games and adding them to the database, like I said earlier, that doesn't have to be done immediately, and just the one game I was trying to install and then perhaps play, should have been added to the database in almost the blink of an eye.

You might be surprised, and like I said, my download PC is not my gaming PC. I don't do online gaming, so don't need to connect for games. Only need to connect to download the offline installers. But if they go, I was checking out what other avenue was available through GOG and Galaxy.

Read my last reply above. It was about using Galaxy if I had to ... no other choice scenario.
I want some way to get an offline installer file regardless. I don't want to be mucking around zipping and copying game folders. And of course your update files are extremely problematical in that scenario ... need some way to grab them too, especially if just a patch.

I just had a rare thought. GOG could learn from delta RPMs. Could unify the data for both galaxy and offline installers without a bunch of BS. GOG would actually save alot of space and bandwidth this way, and wouldn't have to do anything special to maintain the offline installers.

Offline installers are important for many linux users, so if the case is that offline installers get completely removed, that is a lot of the GoG community not buying games here anymore, which would be a really sad day for both linux and GoG.

In my experience, Windows 7 32 bit works fine with 4GB RAM. These days, you'd have to be a bit more conscious about it though: Not trying to play the latest games, don't keep 20 browser tabs open, etc... combine it with a fast enough HDD or SSD, and it should be a smooth experience. (it should be the same for W10 x32)

I couple of years ago, I had an HTPC with W7x32 and 2GB of RAM - it worked fine - for this very specific use case (playinf/organising/serving media, and nothing else).

*raises hand* 4 Gb, no dedicated graphics, Win 7 32-bit

It’s actually even more than that: offline installers are the only way Linux games download is supported by GOG.

---

I have two machines I mainly use to run games on, each having 3~4GB of RAM.
Of course, I do not run Windows on these (not that I would run it on any of my computers).

2gb, 512mb of which goes to my GPU. That and consider that if you want to play a game, Galaxy's resource hogging will take resources away from that game. You can have 8gb, but if you have a background process constantly getting cycles that uses 6gb, you only have 2gb left for the OS and the like. Amazing what people gain simply from closing their browser.

They won't remove it, just they give it maintance to the server but they keep coming, today I recived a couple of updates!

especially youtube and gog page uses a lot of cpu power

You are running a windows OS on 2GB? Wow! It must take ages until the PC has even finished booting (once witnessed this on a 4GB PC with WinXP and it was no fun).

@everybody who chimed in to tell me that my assumption was wrong - my apologies. Consider me surprised, I honestly did not expect that so many are still running with 4GB or even less.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of embedded systems that run WindowXP on 2GB of RAM (or less) that boot and preform admirably. Slow boot times are usually not a problem related to the amount of available RAM, but with spinning rust/shoddy SSD support in XP.

It is a bit of both I'd say. If you have low amount of RAM you will have to use HDD a lot more - even when booting - maybe my mothers HDD (that's where I experienced this) was old as well but I am sure that the low amount of RAM did not help improve things. Also I forgot that SSDs probably will change this a lot (they weren't avaailable/affordable when I witnessed the slow booting above).

Adding more RAM to a system that has an under-performing HDD will not improve Windows boot times unless you are egregiously low on RAM (at or below minimum specs). It's an urban myth.

That's very likely indeed.

So you are telling me that Windows is not using virtual memory at all when booting?

Not unless it has no other choice, in which case you are most likely below the recommended specs or are running a dangerously bloated system and it's time for a reinstall.

Btw, the minimum amount of RAM required for Windows XP is ridiculously low - I believe either 128MB or 256MB.